Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 10, 2014 7:30pm-8:01pm PDT

7:30 pm
potentially with sonoma to dive deeper than they were able to at the hearing and so we are taking a deeper look at the proposals and not the proposals but the successes of the programs, that were implemented by morin and sonoma. and moving off of the workshop, and unless there are any questions on that? >> we are also continuing to assist in support lafco staff and their study of clean power sf, and working with their consultant, and that is another activity at the puc level. and then, moving to 3 b, the status update on the proceeding of the california puc. and i have reported numerous times on this. and it is the pg&e, activities to attempt to have a green
7:31 pm
tariff, option, for their customers and i can report today that we are expecting a proposed decision, in the green tariff proceeding any time now. and the law requires the commission to have a decision, by july, of 2014. and we are actually expecting a proposed decision, and it could be issued this afternoon, or monday. and so, stay tuned on that. we, are expecting further activity after the proposed decision, of course, the way that the puc and the california puc process works and there is a proposed decision, introduced by staff, comments are received, and it sits before the commission, for not less than 30 days. and then the commission may take the item up at a public hearing. so, that is kind of the time frame, and so for that first phase decision. and the assigned commissioner in the case, issued a ruling in early june, that established a third phase of the proceedings.
7:32 pm
and that is where they, they are likely to hash out the community renewable portion of the green tariff program and so even though we are going to be seeing a proposed decision and potentially a decision soon, there is still more to come on the community renewable component and just a reminder throughout this proceeding, san francisco puc staff, our staff, has been actively participating to protect, non-participating rate pairs from bearing any cost from the program that pg&e gets the authorization to introduce or to launch and we have been working to insure that the pg&e facilitates the projects and the disadvantaged communities and that was part of the obligation and we are participating to insure that pg&e renew ables program creates a opportunity for the communities like ours to develop and subscribe to the
7:33 pm
local projects built in our community and that is the focus of our participation and it will continue and finally on the legislative front, ab 2145 was referred to earlier in today's meeting, and this is assembly member bradford's effort to modify the rules of the game if you will for the community choice and it was heard in the senate energy and commerce community on june 23rd and the opposition was successful in removing the opt in requirement and it recalls that this bill will eliminate this opt out and put in place the opt in requirement instead. and there are ongoing amendments to allow pcas to expand existing ccas or new ccas to expand to three counties, and it includes those amendments include some
7:34 pm
grandfathering provisions for existing like ourselves those amendments were passed. and how the amendments will be finally incorporated, and the application of those grandfathering provisions, to the clean power sf, are still to be understood so it is kind of a stay tuned message on that and it is not over yet and that concludes my report, and i am happy to take any questions. >> thank you. and thank you for your presentation. and your report. >> and just a question, on the work that is being done around cca, here, and includes us locally and the discussions with the clean energy and sonoma and the representatives from lafco can take part in the puc discussions with these entities. >> and i imagine so, and i am remiss of not mentioning that the members of your own staff and lafco staff were present and participated, thank you. >> okay, great, that is going to be mr. kelley the general
7:35 pm
manager is obviously going to be setting up those discussions? >> working through us. >> yes. >> they are actively engaged in the effort to calendar those. and i would want to make sure that through mr. freed and our office and able to take part and i want to take part and mr. freed as well. >> i will take that back to the general manager, thank you. >> colleagues, any other questions? mr. freed? >> jason, freed, lasco staff, miss hail did give a good synopsis of what occurred, there was a lot of discussion and a lot of interest, but once again, while the staff is once again looking at least at these options there is still not the four robust, you know, movement of the staff to try to get a program forward and so hopefully as these discussions start to continue, again they will pick up the speed and we will get the staff working on the regular basis of trying to launch the program in the city and i think that it was a good
7:36 pm
start at least, getting us restarted in this process of getting the program moving forward and then on ab 12, or 2145, and that is was, that i think that it was a very good victory in a lot of ways of what got stripped out of the bill and there is still some concern about some of the language that was put in there and even the unions and the three county, and the step was arbitrary in nature and still needs to be worked out and definitely needs to be worked out and let's not forget that none of the utilities need to worry, and they have the service charge and they service all of those people and why should we set rules differently, because we should allow them to choose who they want to be a part of and there is something that we should monitor and participating in
7:37 pm
the discussions, with the that wraps up my report. >> very good. thank you very much. >> and no other questions from here, and so we will go on to the public comment on this item and this is item three and our update and reports on the activities? >> good afternoon, eric brooks, san francisco green party and the local grassroots, and san francisco clean energy advocates and the coordinator of the californians for the energy choice, which has been fighting against ab 2145. in sacramento, and me personally over time and so if
7:38 pm
you have questions about that, please do ask, when i get to the bell and i can answer them, and either that or i can answer them off like. and on the issue of the workshop that was held at the sfpuc and i will have to concur and amplify on what mr. freed said. and it is great that they had, a workshop, and it is great that we are hearing more from the sfpuc and from a couple of the commissioners and definitely from the general manager kelley, and we heard exactly the same diminishment that we have been hearing for the last couple of years on clean power sf. and so, the coalition said that i represent, still see lafco as the primary driver for this program and we would like you to keep being that driver and keep working on the local build out. and with regard, with ab 2145,
7:39 pm
it is restricting clean power sf and the other programs to only, three counties, and we think that will be extremely problematic and we need to make sure that we keep opposing this bill, so that we can remove that provision, they want to compare the projected rates and require the insurance programs to post the actual rates that they are going to have and leave them open to lawsuits and so we need to get rid that have provision as well. >> any other members come forward. >> seeing none, we will close public comment. >> do you have any responses? >> no.
7:40 pm
>> okay. we will go to item four. >> item four, authorization to amend the local services agreement with miller and owen to extend the term to june 30, 2015. >> thank you, and mr. freed will be presenting. >> sure. this one against is the annual reuping of the miller and owens contract to do the legal services in the past for many years that we are appreciative that she would, and miss miller was also acting as the executive officer with the recent changes that they are going back to the legal services. so, we are, and we are requesting that if we continue the legal services and also, with their knowledge, and experience, here i am also going to be part of and we will be utilizing that knowledge and experience, for other purposes outside of the legal council services and last year we had approved not-to-exceed rate of $95,000 but based on the board of supervisors, you know, the
7:41 pm
request that this be a cost saving measure and also the fact of the work load being reduced and given the chance of the responsibility within lafco and the staff is recommending a amount of $45,000, and this is for me, a best guess as to what are not-to-exceed amount would be. and if we as the year goes on and we will be monitoring this and if it turns out that i was wrong, i will come back to you and increase that amount and because we are entering a new era here of not knowing exactly how much or what services will be needed and if there is a project and something that comes up, that we are not planning on we will need to have the services and that will be one that i think that when we brought the budget for that, i will also be bringing the budget for the extra services of miss miller's office to do the activities for us, and so if we think that this is a good place to start and like i said, if the amount, needs to be exceeded that will be the case and also in addition to this, it is a couple of years, since miss miller requested an increase and requesting an increase this time of her rates of $5 an hour, for her and,
7:42 pm
each of her staff to do work for us. and so, that rate is schedule in your packet so that you can see what the schedule is and i am encouraging you to support, approving the extension of the contract for one year as well as the rate increase,. and with the not-to-exceed amount of $45,000 and as always, the contract has the ability for us if we wish to terminate the contract at any point in time during the year. any questions i am happy to answer. >> okay, thank you that was thorough and the packet has all of the information as well and so, not-to-exceed rate of $45,000 for the fiscal year. and that could be adjusted if need be during the middle of the year and also an hourly increase. from 208 dollars an hour to $285 dollars an hour, or $275 to $280 and that is for the staff as well. and i am okay with that especially knowing that miss miller will not be in the executive director position and now you are the director and probably the hours will be less as well and so it does make
7:43 pm
some sense.. >> i want to note that i am certainly supportive of this and i want to thank miss miller i have certainly appreciated the excellent work that you have done, and i think that it is important for us to maintain that continuity and thank the staff for the recommendation. >> any public comment?
7:44 pm
>> seeing none, could we have a motion to approve the rates? >> or for the not-to-exceed rate from commissioner breed and campos and we will take that without objection. >> and the item passes. >> okay. >> and the next item please? >> sorry. item number five, san francisco lafco reserve fund policy. >> i think that pg&e was happy about that. >> commissioner, mr. freed? >> jason, freed, lafco staff, and on this item, if you remember from last month's meeting where we were talking about the budget, we were talking about our reserved fund that we have left and how that has been shrinking over the years as we have been spending it down to get the acceptable level and the fact is that we
7:45 pm
don't have a policy in place to determine what should be responsible amount for us to keep in place. and so based on the request from the commission last month, i did some research into what do the other s do as far as the reserve funds and just as every lafco is different, the reserve policies are very different, and some not having any and some have the specific ones and i wanted to focus on the ones that are similar to what i believe that we are looking for here in this commission which is a more general reserve and in your packet you will note that there is an attachment that has, a draft language for a reserve for our policy that we could add to our policy, and since we don't have one right now. and but it is, what i tried to take the best parts of what i thought that we were looking to do, and yield a couple of questions to the commission so that you can make the final determination if you want it and if so, what to set that rate at. most of the commissions when they had a reserve policy, had 10 to 25 percent was set as a
7:46 pm
reserve amount. and some of them made note that that was a goal, and because they had started with nothing and were trying to work their way up for us it ko actually be the reis reis heser and we have more and it will be working our way down to it and so that will be an impact if we should do this because we will be making sure that we are keeping that money set aside and not spending it, unless there is a direct action with the understanding that they are drawing out of that reserve fund and need to build that fund back up to get it to the proper amount in order to be in that commission's policies should we adopt something today. and one issue that i think that i did find and one of the commissions and i incorporated the language in our, for the purposes of the language, although that you can remove it if you so desire, and one of them, that specifically acknowledged that the staff, when they leave have things that are cost and associated with that, and such as the pay out and the vacation time and the things like that and make sure that the reserve has enough money to pay for all of the staff leaving assuming that they will leave on the last day
7:47 pm
of that fiscal year, if you leave on the last day, a lot of places what you do is pay out of person and it will take a month or two to find a person to replace them and all of a sudden you balance it by not having the person there and that pays for the vacation time and given the fact that how they currently operate and how the position and is one that is established in a way where it could send any fiscal year and right now we have through the next fiscal year and we are okay for now and it will likely end and if i leave at this point, you will be paying out and not necessarily have much money left in the account for that and so having a reserve fund that is set aside to make sure that you are paying out and not going into debt for the very end of the year is that something, and needed. and having said that, even if you went with the ten percent amount of the lowest, of the lafco you will actually have more than enough to cover my expenses of the departure should that ever occur. and so i will leave it at that. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner breed? >> thank you.
7:48 pm
i do understand that for some time, lafco has had a reserve, and we usually keep a certain amount of money in the reserve account, but, i guess, i am just not clear as to why we need to establish a policy with those minimum reserve, so since they are seems to always be a reserve, that exists within the lafco budget. >> there is always been a reserve, probably because the first few years of lafco we got a money from the city and county of san francisco and it sat there being unspent and when i started working for lafco i believe that the reserve was somewhere up to 1 million dollars and we are now down to or we will be at the end of the fiscal here, $300,000, and we are doing it as a way to help the city and county, and many of those years were difficult budget years and we are not going to take any money we will spend ourselves
7:49 pm
down and every given year, even though we have the fund that will be going away as well, and unless we get an extension of the mou and we are going to get to a point where we don't have any money left in the reserve and so setting up the policy now, will establish and we continue to spend down which is what my goal will be to take the least amount that we need from the city and county until we get the reserve to a respectable level and by setting a policy, we will be establishing what that level is, and because what i want to keep in mind is if we budget ourselves should there be a last m inthat needs to be done, we will have a reserve always in place to make sure that we can do the things at the end of the year that we will not be able to do otherwise, it givens us the flexibility and you are correct, up to now we have not had a need for policy but i could see one coming in the next couple of years and maybe not this upcoming year and a year or two after that and this establishment now will be helpful for us. >> for the next several years you will be living off of the reserve and moving down and we could, actually, be using a
7:50 pm
different source of funding to pay for lafco activity and here we will with this policy, and we will set a floor for what the minimum will be in our reserve. >> correct. >> as we move on to another source. >> and as we go back to the city and the county funding source, and as our funding source for lafco, we will have a reserve set in place, to protect ourselves in case there was an over run of cost for some reason. >> and so, just for clarification, so, clearly, if we have say, a requirement, that we said ten percent of a certain dollar amount as a reserve, we need to go into those reserves how are we going to refill it, so that it goes back to what we expect to have as a policy for a minimum reserve? >> what you should do is spend it down in one year and with the following year's budget your goal will be to make sure that you have enough money left over, at the end of the year that you are balancing that out and you are saying, hey, we
7:51 pm
diped in $5,000 into the reserve and the following year you will have a line item that will be repaying the $5,000 is one way that you can do that. >> i mean, and i guess that i just, i just don't see that it is establishing a policy is really necessary. since we received our annual allocation, and the goal is that if necessary, it does not need for this allocation for whatever purpose we will budget for that. >> correct. >> what you get is sometimes you will get something at the end of the fiscal year, occurring. and for example, my departure could end at the end of a fiscal year and once we are off of the current reserve being as flush as it is and we are down to the regular amount, you could end up if you don't have any reserve left over, not having the ability to pay the package to the staff when they leave, and you are all of a sudden going into debt and that is not good and there are ways for the county to loan money to
7:52 pm
lafco if it was so needed but having a reserve will keep that process from having to be discussed but to make sure that we are maintaining our own budget in ourselves and having the extra should there be an over cost run and like i said, the policy to set up one is up to the commission to decide. >> okay. >> okay. thank you for your report. and presentation, and we will go into the public comment, on this item. regarding the san francisco reserve policy. and yes? good afternoon, once again. commissioners. >> and first, just to speak in favor of what your staff has recommended and i think that we are getting closer to game time with clean power sf and there are going to be needs for the staff and the contractors to do the work and some of that might be surprise work and i think that it makes a lot of sense what the director freed is proposing. and all right, i guess the executive officer, freed is proposing. and so, we would support that. and i would also like to red
7:53 pm
flag something for you. with regard to the funds that we get from the san francisco public utilities commission, i believe that even though it was not necessary for the lafco to do this, there was a memo of understanding or agreement formed with the puc about the use of the funds and the responsibilities and that i believe is up next year. and so now would be the time to start exploring and making sure that that agreement stays in place. and so that we don't find ourselves next year, with the san francisco public utilities commission saying, well, guys, there is funds are not available to you any more, because the agreement is no longer in place. so, i just wanted to red flag that and so the folks are paying attention to it. >> thanks. >> thank you. any other member of the public that would like to comment come forward and seeing none, we will close public comment. and colleagues, i am actually, i know that we are going to go through maybe a couple of more years before we get to the end
7:54 pm
of the reserve, i actually would support a policy that would put a certainly percentage on it and i actually would be fine on the high end, 25 percent, or it is a small, and it is not a small fund, it is not a large fund, and so, to me having a policy of about 25 percent and which possibly could be about 75,000 dollars, or $300,000 reserve, and actually, i am thinking as i am talking. so i am probably like a 15 percent reserve to me would make the sense and to me would be around $40,000, and i could probably live with something like that and we would not get to that until we actually have you know, utilized what is in the existing reserve and the reserve policy will kick in, when we have another sort of funding that would pay for the general lafco activity and so it would not be like we are living off of the reserve any more and the other four, i will
7:55 pm
live with a 15 percent and i am willing to go up and down on that and probably more up than down? >> commissioner breed? >> and i am okay with it. i just want to make sure that what we are trying to do, as we relate to developing a plan, and what we are trying to do as we relate to implementing that plan and a joining marin or all of the things that we want to do and i don't want this to have an impact on the expenses necessary to see those things through. and so i guess, i am okay with establishing a reserve, but, i'm not okay with doing it at the expense of what we are trying to accomplish. i don't want that to create a difficulty for us. so that is the only issue that i will have, but i am open to the possibility of doing it. >> yeah. and i would be concerned about what happened to it and mr. freed will respond to that. >> yeah, the one thing to keep in mind is what we are talking about is the general fund reserve and not our cca fund
7:56 pm
reserve and they are two different accounts of money and while i, and i am looking at it here and i am realizing that the policy itself is not stated but if you stick it into the lafco budget section, it does not talk about the funds and it does not impact that in any way and this will be the general fund reserve, rather than the lafco cca fund and if we are going to set that up, can you make sure that is clear in the language? >> thanks. >> okay, colleagues, very good. >> and o, i put on 15 percent, and i could go a little bit higher, or if the people don't want to have a reserve, let me know. and we will have it and i will motion that we put in this language, but a percentage that we will put in will be 15 percent. okay? and the other colleagues and we will take that without objection. >> actually, if you are wanting to approve the draft language
7:57 pm
that we put in here, miss miller is saying that we might want to establish one in the draft forms and the 1.51 is establishing the annual budget and might want to say when establishing the lafco budget and not the cca fund, and then we could adopt the draft language that is in here with the 15 percent number added in and i think that will be addressed to commissioner breed's concerns. >> okay and this will effect the next fiscal year and currently we have the lafco for the next fiscal here is how much? >> and when i looked at it, and two or three months ago, we were in the 350 range, i believe, and that is, you know, we probably spent that down a little bit and so my estimate is that we will end to $300,000 to $310,000 in the reserve account, and if we establish this today we are above the policy and i would not be putting any warnings to you, probably at all next year, it will be the year after that when we are setting up the
7:58 pm
budget that we want to make sure that we are balancing things correctly. >> and so by adding this language we are not setting up a reserve on that amount of money already? >> we are setting up that we have an amount and we are meeting that and we have more than what we need in that account and so as we are moving forward, what i will imagine and this is just thinking ahead and not out loud. is not this upcoming fiscal year, the budget has been decided the following fiscal year, we probably are going to need to get some money from the city and county of san francisco and maybe we don't ask for the three. and the 300,000 is still caping that reserve and so we are spending it down appropriately and we have the amount correct in the reserve, and accepting the full amount and balancing the things out. >> according to the language and the majority of the vote of the commissions, the money can't be used and so there will have to be an actual vote for
7:59 pm
anything to go below. >> i will read into the record the language, 1.65, when establishing the annual budget, lafco shall at a minimum hold, 15 percent of the annual budget, or enough to cover costs for the department staff severance pay whichever is greater and i think that there is another language to add. >> yeah. and that first sentence is when establishing its annual lafco budget. >> okay. >> when establishing its annual lafco budget, it shall hold in the reserve account, 15 percent or enough to cover the cost of the severance pay, whichever is greater by the majority vote of the commission shall the money be used with the understanding that it will be replenished in the future. >> okay. so the colleagues, we can take that without objection, and great. thank you.
8:00 pm
>> and actually, that is a very responsible for us to do. and so. >> item seven, executive officer's report. >> and i wish you all a happy pride weekend. >> happy pride to you as well. >> public comment on the item number seven? >> general public comment, is the next item. >> yeah. great. >> and just, using the opportunity of the executive officer's report because it is an action item, eric brooks, representing san francisco green party, our city. and san francisco and the clean advocates of the co-coordinator of the choice and on the ab 2145, issue, you might remember that you and the executive officer prepared a letter to your almost to send to sacramento, assembly members about ab 2145 and now